What Gets Stolen with Stolen Valor

Pulitzer-prize winning conservative columnist George Will raised an eyebrow in recently caviling with the Stolen Valor Act because, after all, falsely claiming to have been decorated for gallantry does not really steal from a true hero, so doesn't this fuss fly in the face of free speech? Details at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will111311.php3

The anti-Stolen Valor Act argument appeared to be making the case that Xavier Alvarez's misrepresenting of himself as a Medal of Honor recipient might in some way deserve protected speech insulation normally afforded expression of political views and that it was, after all, a victimless offense that did not rise to the seriousness of obscenity, fraud, incitement, or speech integral to criminal conduct (Will's criteria for seriousness). Allow me to offer an alternative perspective.

Argument #1 is that Alvarez, and anyone else claiming honors falsely, is committing fraud akin to misrepresenting credentials and expertise on a resume in order to qualify for a job. Most employers find such fraud not only reprehensible but also actionable, stating it as grounds for termination or withdrawal of an offer of employment. Viewed through this lens, a questioning observer would ask why Alvarez and his like would misrepresent themselves as having earned honors they did not deserve. Manifestly, there has to be some anticipated return for risking humiliating exposure. What is that return? Well, in the case of a political appointment such as to a public agency's board of directors, you can bet that fraudulent credentials that bear testimony to altruism and service of others over self count for something. In other words, Alvarez did not falsify objective proofs of courage and selflessness just to fill in gaps in conversation. No, such a recitation would stand him apart from competitors and lend panache to an otherwise anemic history of exploits one might expect from the kind of wretch who sails through the mainstream of life without making a ripple. By Mr. Will's gauge, however, are we to understand that fraud doesn't count unless it directly victimizes an identifiable person, as in the case of identity theft? If so, then that would mean that every impostor since Ferdinand Demarra would deserve a pass for misrepresenting himself until after someone got hurt. Alas for the patient under the scalpel of a lab tech posing as a surgeon or for the defendant represented by an egomaniacal law student who never passed the bar. Don't they and we deserve better protection against instrumental fraud executed to advance the predatory impulses of its perpetrator? In any case, don't Alvarez's competitors for that board seat qualify as having been disadvantaged by his stolen valor? Of course they do. His self-styled heroics no doubt set him apart and even above co-equals whose unspectacular resumes would in all probability have outshone Alvarez's if the latter's had not been seasoned by proclamations of apparent courage and resolve under fire.

Argument #2 concerns a larger, societal merit in expressing disapprobation for fraud in some way that counts. As Dennis Prager has it, society expresses its attitude on any offense solely by the punishment it metes out. To dismiss the Stolen Valor Act is to grant a societal imprimatur to falsifying acts of heroism as long as they are not specifically those of another, i.e., not literally "stolen" from someone in particular, in the sense of identity theft once again. What about the dilution effect likely to result when a horde of poltroons invades the small stage of respect and admiration reserved for true -- and few -- heroes? There is a reason that Medal of Honor winners are not as numerous as locusts: a high mortality rate, with honors often conferred posthumously. If it becomes expedient and socially acceptable to lie about decorations for gallantry, including this highest of the high, how does this not cheapen the medal for the truly deserving? The net effect becomes to commoditize medals, with medal-mills soon offering them up along with coin collections from the Franklin Mint or velvet wall hangings of Elvis, ultimately resulting in the denial of public respect and honor -- already evanescent in a jaded society -- to the few remaining heroes. Leaving aside that laws like Stolen Valor often get tagged with labels that are imperfect in order for them to be distinguishable from one another, the Stolen Valor Act does appear, on balance, to meet Will's criteria of defending against loss-causing action such as fraud on this larger, societal scale.

Would George Will be willing to reconsider his case against the Stolen Valor Act or at least on the philosophical merits of expressing society's rejection of fraudulent claims of heroism which inflate individual resumes and egos, in effect growing forests to hide the few tall trees of worthy exemplars who deserve our respect and thanks?

-- Nick Catrantzos